Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal, filed in 2015, was treated as duplicate/infructuous by the CIT(A) due to an earlier unsigned order from 2018. The assessee argued the unsigned order was invalid and that crucial documents were not provided, violating natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that an unsigned order cannot be treated as a final appellate order. The inconsistencies in dates and lack of proper verification by the CIT(A) indicated a failure to adjudicate the matter carefully.
Key Issues
Whether an unsigned appellate order can be considered valid, and if the failure to provide documents and conduct proper verification violates natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 40A(2)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
(Assessment Year: 2012-13) SLT Energy Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of (Now merged with Sahajanand Income Tax, Laser Technology Ltd.), Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad GIDC Electronic Estate, 28, S.O., Jurisdictional AO Gandhinagar-382028 DCIT, Circle Gandhinagar [PAN No.AAGCS1983B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Arti N Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR 06.11.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 O R D E R
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 24.03.2025 passed for A.Y. 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ['Hon'ble CIT(A)] has erred in law and on facts of the case in treating the present appeal as duplicate/infructuous on the ground that an order under section 250 of the Act had already been passed on 23.08.2018. It is respectfully submitted that the said order dated 23.08.2018 passed u/s. 250 of the Act does not contain any signature, rendering it as invalid and unenforceable order. Order-XX Rule-3 of Civil Procedure Code mandates that the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge at the time of pronouncing it and when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered. SLT Energy Ltd (now merged with Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd.) vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts by failing to provide the crucial documents specifically sought by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings. As the appeal was filed on 01.05.2015 nearly a decade ago, the Appellant had misplaced the grounds of appeal and statement of facts. In the absence of these, the Appellant was unable to respond effectively to the hearing notice. Hence, the order dated 24.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Act is vitiated by a serious breach of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case by mechanically passing the order dated 24.03.2025 under section 250 of the Act, merely relying on the draft order dated 23.08.2018 without any independent inquiry. This is evident from the conflicting dates mentioned in the order dated 24.03.2025 which mentions the assessment order as dated 27.03.2015 whereas the hearing notice dated 26.12.2024 issued u/s. 250 of the Act refers to an assessment order dated 31.03.2015, showing that the facts were not properly checked and the order was passed without due application of mind. Without prejudice to above-
4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law and fact of the case in upholding the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') amounting to Rs. 43,50,000/-, being in the nature of unsecured loan.
5. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in law and fact of the case in upholding the disallowance made by Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 1,07,555/- u/s. 40A(2)9b) of the Act.
6. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in law and fact of the case in upholding the disallowance made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 16,24,082/- pertaining to salaries and wages.
7. The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the above Grounds of Appeal.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, SLT Energy Limited, had merged with Sahajanand Laser Technology Limited pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dated 03.08.2016. The assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) on 27.03.2015 by the DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal on 01.05.2015 challenging the assessment order before the then Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). SLT Energy Ltd (now merged with Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd.) vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3–
4. With the implementation of the faceless appeal mechanism under Notification No. 76 of 2020 dated 25.09.2020, the appeal, though already decided in the physical system, migrated as a pending appeal to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The faceless system thereafter issued several notices under section 250 between July 2023 and February 2025, fixing the case for hearing on multiple occasions and calling upon the assessee to furnish its submissions. In response to these notices, the assessee submitted that the company had been merged and that the earlier appeal papers such as Form-35, the grounds of appeal, the statement of facts, and even the assessment order could not be traced. The assessee further drew attention to the fact that the income-tax portal displayed an appellate order dated 23.08.2019 passed by CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad under section 250 for A.Y. 2012-13 relating to the same assessment order. In view of this, the assessee requested NFAC to verify whether the appeal had already been disposed of earlier and to make available the appeal documents so that they could comply appropriately.
The CIT(Appeals) examined the ITBA records and found that the pending appeal did not contain any Form-35, grounds of appeal
, statement of facts or assessment order. In order to verify the true status of the matter, the CIT(Appeals) sought clarification from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In reply, the Assessing Officer informed through a letter dated 18.12.2024 that the original appeal filed by the assessee against the order under section 143(3) had already been adjudicated and disposed of by CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad through a detailed appellate order in Appeal No. 183/2015-16 dated 23.08.2019. SLT Energy Ltd (now merged with Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd.) vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 - 4–
6. After receiving this confirmation and examining the situation, the CIT(Appeals) held that the appeal appearing as pending before NFAC was not a live appeal but a duplicate entry that had inadvertently migrated during the transition to the faceless system. The CIT(Appeals) held that once the earlier appellate authority had already passed an order disposing of the assessee’s appeal on 23.08.2019, there was no scope in law for the same appeal to be adjudicated again. The CIT(Appeals) noted that the assessee itself had admitted that the earlier appeal order existed on the portal, although unsigned in the version they could view online, and had not produced any evidence to show that the earlier appeal had been set aside or remained undecided.
7. The CIT(Appeals), therefore, held that the pending appeal shown in the faceless portal was infructuous and devoid of any legal basis. Since an appeal cannot be adjudicated twice and the original appellate proceedings had reached finality, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was a duplicate or erroneous entry reflected on ITBA after the migration. The CIT(Appeals) thus held that no adjudication on merits could be undertaken because the appeal was already disposed of, and accordingly dismissed the present appeal as infructuous.
The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(Appeals) had erred in treating the present appeal as duplicate or SLT Energy Ltd (now merged with Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd.) vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 - 5– infructuous merely on the basis that an order under section 250 dated 23.08.2018 existed on the system. He argued that the so-called appellate order of 23.08.2018 was not a valid order in the eyes of law because it did not contain any signature, and an unsigned order could not be regarded as a final or enforceable judicial order. The Counsel for the assessee pointed out that Order XX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that a judgment must be dated and signed at the time of pronouncement, and any unsigned order is void and incapable of having legal effect. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in treating the present appeal as disposed of merely by relying on an unsigned document. The Counsel further submitted that the assessee had specifically requested copies of the appeal documents, including Form-35, the grounds of appeal, the statement of facts and the assessment order, because the original documents filed nearly a decade ago in 2015 had been misplaced during the course of the merger with Sahajanand Laser Technology Limited. Despite repeated requests, the CIT(Appeals) did not provide these documents, which deprived the assessee of the ability to respond properly to the notices issued under section 250. He submitted that the failure to furnish these essential papers resulted in a serious violation of natural justice, rendering the order dated 24.03.2025 invalid and liable to be set aside. The Counsel for the assessee also contended that the CIT(Appeals) had mechanically relied upon the draft order dated 23.08.2018 without carrying out any independent verification. This, according to the Counsel, was evident from the inconsistent references in the impugned order wherein the assessment order was mentioned as dated 27.03.2015, whereas the hearing notice issued on 26.12.2024 referred to the assessment order as dated SLT Energy Ltd (now merged with Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd.) vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 - 6– 31.03.2015. These inconsistencies, it was submitted showed that the facts were not examined properly and that the order was passed without due application of mind. Without prejudice to the above submissions, the Counsel also submitted that even on merits the CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding various additions made by the Assessing Officer. These included the addition of ₹43,50,000 treated as unsecured loans, the disallowance of ₹1,07,555 under section 40A(2)(b), and the disallowance of ₹16,24,082 relating to salaries and wages. The Counsel submitted that the assessee had valid supporting evidence for each of these items, but the CIT(Appeals) had not considered them because the appeal had been wrongly dismissed as infructuous. The Counsel therefore urged that the matter required fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity.
In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the earlier order passed by CIT(Appeals) available on the portal was unsigned, and therefore not a valid or enforceable order in the eyes of law. The assessee also requested the CIT(Appeals) to furnish copies of Form-35, the grounds of appeal and the statement of facts, all of which had been misplaced after the merger, but no such documents were furnished to the assessee. It is also undisputed that the CIT(Appeals) proceeded to dismiss the appeal as a duplicate without first satisfying himself whether the earlier order had in fact been validly passed or whether the documents required for effective disposal were available to the SLT Energy Ltd (now merged with Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd.) vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 - 7– appellant. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that an unsigned order cannot be treated as a final appellate order, and in such circumstances, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have examined the matter more carefully before dismissing the appeal as infructuous. The inconsistencies pointed out in the dates mentioned in the impugned order further show that the factual matrix was not verified with due care. In our considered view, in the interest of justice the assessee be afforded a proper and meaningful opportunity to present its case before the first appellate authority. Since the assessee has also raised substantive grounds on merits which have remained unadjudicated, it is appropriate that the entire matter be restored for fresh consideration.
Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(Appeals) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(Appeals) shall analyse the findings of CIT(Appeals) in the earlier appellate order, provide the assessee with all requisite appeal documents available on the system, allow adequate opportunity of being heard, and thereafter pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all documents as may be required.